ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[gnso-irtp-b-jun09] IRTP B and the ETRP

  • To: <Gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] IRTP B and the ETRP
  • From: "Diaz, Paul" <pdiaz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 16:49:07 -0500

Dear WG colleagues,

We’ve spent a lot of time working through IRTP B issues, including the ETRP 
proposal.  Now many of us are spending an extra hour a week just on the latter. 
 Some (thank you, Berry & Mikey) have volunteered even more time to try to 
graph the existing and proposed processes so that we can see where all of this 
might dovetail or conflict.  

Looking at the to-do list (in part, below) and considering the clock, does it 
make sense to keep investing time and effort in the ETRP concept?  

While I appreciate the "can do" attitude of the sub-team members, I have to 
ask: is it realistic?  We're far from working out critical details like the 
amount of time to file a claim, what entity should lock a disputed name, what 
constitutes "due process," who might independently administer the process, and 
how to educate the community.  As we drill down on each issue, we realize that 
are a host of other concerns and/or potential unintended consequences.  And we 
haven't really begun to consider the implications of this potential policy on 
existing practices and standards...

I believe we've collectively given the ETRP concept a fair chance, but we 
should drop it.  There are simply too many moving parts.  The community (our 
Stakeholder Group colleagues, those who offered comments to the Initial Report, 
and/or domain industry survey participants) has not been supportive of the 
concept, and many argue existing (albeit imperfect) tools suffice.  

While I originally supported the ETRP concept as a quick and predictable way to 
return hijacked domains to their rightful registrant, I believe the current 
proposal has drifted from that goal and is now unworkable - and unworthy of 
additional policy work.  We can better serve the community by focusing our 
energies on the other remaining issues, and get our Final Report to the Council 
ahead of ICANN San Francisco.  

Respectfully, P

From: owner-gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Berry Cobb
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 11:55 PM
To: Gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] Proposed agenda IRTP Part B WG meeting

For the 2nd Hour Team & All of IRTP-B for that matter,

I apologize for not getting this out in time for review before our call.  30 
lashes to me!  

Here is a revised agenda for the 2nd Hour:
1. Recap last week’s discussion and proposals
2. Review Mikey’s eTRP Diagram (ps, I started a swimlame version too)
3. Review survey results spreadsheet

2nd Hour Take-Aways from 4 Jan 2011 (Please feel free to add to the list if I 
misstated or omitted anything):
• Agreement to keep eTRP but modify to prevent misuse and gaming
• Possible enhancements:
o Ensure rapid restore of domain is maintained, and domain becomes locked
o shorter timeline for filing complaint (60 days to perhaps 7 days or shorter?)
o option for the other side to state their case, “due process”
o independent third party to administer the process (can't be the previous 
registrar as that party is not impartial)
o better define eTRP process as not a dispute resolution tool, it only 
interfaces to IRTP & TDRP
o Create education for parties on how to handle complaints and interact
o Also include the 60 day lock WRT to Denial Reason #9
• Objective is to slow down or minimize hops common to hi-jacks
• If this were to become consensus policy, it is a fall back for Registrars to 
mitigate customer dissatisfaction
o Determine how the Change of Registrant or Reducing Admin Contact authority 
recommendations, if made will affect eTRP

Mikey mentioned two layers of remediation of Transfer issue:
1. Registrar to Registrar – informal cooperation
2. Registrar to Registrar – TDRP with ICANN involved

I came across other material and I think there are additional layers that 
perhaps should be documented within the final report:
1. Registrant to PTRr – Registrar denies dispute
2. PTRr to PTRa – informal cooperation
3. PTRr to PTRa w/ ICANN – via TDRP
4. Registry Specific Reassignment Service - ← This is new to me
5. Law Enforcement / Courts

See you all tomorrow morning!

Berry Cobb
Infinity Portals LLC

From: owner-gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Marika Konings
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 3:24 AM
To: Gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] Proposed agenda IRTP Part B WG meeting

Dear All,

Please find below the proposed agenda for tomorrow's IRTP Part B WG meeting.

With best regards,


Proposed Agenda – IRTP Part B WG Meeting – 11 January 2011
1st hour – 15.00 – 16.00 UTC
1. Roll Call / Update SOI-DOI
2. Continue discussion on recommendations (please review updated 
recommendations overview)
3. For review - EPP Status Values Overview (see attached)
4. Next steps & confirm next meeting
2nd hour – 16.00 – 17.00 UTC
5. Continue discussion and refinement of ETRP (action items from last week's 
meeting: Review Mikey's flowchart and Berry's analysis of ETRP survey results – 
both attached)
6. Next steps  

Remaining Action Items IRTP Part B WG meeting 21 December
• Circulate relevant section from transcript of WHOIS session in Sydney during 
which inconsistencies with the UDRP provision relating to locking of a domain 
name was discussed (James)
• Circulate overview and definition of EPP status values document for WG input 
(Marika – attached in this email)

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy